Laserfiche WebLink
<br />endangered fish, and on the Gold Medal fishery of the Gunnison River. They also pointed out <br />that there should be a distinction drawn between providing indirect benefits and maintaining post- <br />Aspinall Unit river conditions. The Gunnison County Stockgrowers Association expressed <br />general support for the program provided existing water uses could be protected. <br /> <br />The National Park Service suggested specific language changes, which have been made in the <br />final EA, concerning the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument, and expressed <br />concemfneed for clarification on the effect of the interim agreement on reservoir water levels <br />at Blue Mesa. State Senator Linda Powers wrote that existing water uses, important for the <br />economy and culture of western Colorado, should be protected. <br /> <br />San Miguel Greens, a conservation biology organization, and the Grand Valley Audubon Society <br />expressed support for the proposals to help recover the endangered fish. The Environmental <br />Defense Fund supported the proposals and reflected that an EIS was not necessary for the actions <br />covered. They did question whether the interim agreement's intent to protect water users <br />confers a benefit that would otherwise create a repayment obligation; and recommended this be <br />studied for planning of the long-term contract. <br /> <br />Wilderness Aware urged the inclusion of a safe boating passage as part of the project. The city <br />of Grand Junction requested some clarification on the description of their water supply facilities <br />at the Redlands Diversion Dam and stressed the need that the program should be <br />designed/assessed so that the city would not be in a position of "taking" (harming) the <br />endangered fish that could be directed into the vicinity of their facilities. <br /> <br />The High Country Citizens' Alliance endorsed the proposals on the condition that the interim <br />agreement and fmal EA provide protection to other Gunnison Basin water uses; and they <br />requested that it be acknowledged that power generation is an incidental pUIpose of the Aspinall <br />Unit. Gunnison Basin Power had similar comments and added more recognition of historic <br />agreements to protect water uses is needed. <br /> <br />The Colorado Department of Health concluded that the project would comply with the Clean <br />Water Act and applicable sections of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The Colorado <br />Department of Agriculture stressed the importance of protecting existing water uses from an <br />agricultural standpoint. The Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer concluded that the <br />project would not adversely affect cultural resources. The Fish and Wildlife Service wrote that <br />the program would be beneficial to the endangered fish and would not affect other threatened <br />and endangered species. Also, it is not anticipated that the proposed actions would result in any <br />harm (incidental take) to the endangered fishes. <br /> <br />The Colorado River Energy Distributors Association asked several questions to help clarify the <br />functioning and need of the fish passageway and requested that the impact to power users be <br />assessed. Also, they felt the initial project could precipitate other actions that need to be <br />evaluated. The Department of Energy--Western Area Power Administration-- suggested that <br />they, and other participants in the Recovery Program, be added as signatories to the interim <br /> <br />44 <br />